Mysterious Alignment of Ancient Sites of the World

Perhaps there is an answer. Google " The Code of Carl P. Munck" and see if this will help you. He was the first to give this work a name : archaeocryptography. I too believe there is a connection between these ancient sites. Munck uses what he calls Gematrian numbers to connect these places. Tell me if you thing all this is coincidence.

Originally posted by Tasty Canadian
Perhaps there is an answer. Google " The Code of Carl P. Munck" and see if this will help you. He was the first to give this work a name : archaeocryptography. I too believe there is a connection between these ancient sites. Munck uses what he calls Gematrian numbers to connect these places. Tell me if you thing all this is coincidence.

Now that is some very interesting reading. I seriously doubt that it is all coincidence.

reply to post by afterschoolfun


hey man, awesome work, awesome thread,

just had an idea, just wanna throw it out there,

pole shifts & the 'lines'

what if the reason all these ancient peoples marked out their line in the spot they did is because it marked the 'old' location of the north/south pole axis? and then there was a pole shift and the pole/axis moved to where it is now??

just an idea...

P.L.U.R.I
-B.M

[edit on 23/9/09 by B.Morrison]

Whether these sites were built according to coincidence, or by some other mysterious means, Starred and Flagged for the research put forth and presented in this thread.

No doubt many civilizations were brought up near the equator. But, that's really no explanations for these sites being built within this latitude. These site could have been raised anywhere ... most people would choose to build them in the place that had the most resources to accomplish their goal. Obviously many of these sites were built in the most extreme environments that lacked any of the resources required to accomplish their end goal. An obvious examples would be Machu Pichu and the Pyramids at Giza. Why haul all those stones into the middle of the desert or up a mountain ... oh, yeah because it's on the equator. It doesn't make any sense to use that as an excuse. I could think of several more explanations that make more sense than that.

Anyway, if someone really wants to prove this theory wrong, why not find other ancient sites and line them up or connect them in the same method that that the ones in the OP were? Let me know what you find out and how many you come up with.

reply to post by afterschoolfun


Great first thread OP! please keep up the good work. Although there may be some "holes" in this theory, I personally find it rather remarkable that there are so many sites within this circle. An addendum to your idea is: Did you notice how close your center point in Alaska is to the Magnetic Pole? I wonder if the magnetic north pole was at one time centered on this area and perhaps had something to do with this area being center point??

Hey BM you added your observation just before mine.
great twisted minds must think alike!

[edit on 23-9-2009 by redbarron626]

reply to post by redbarron626


The info is out there if you do some reasearch. This is 5 minutes of looking around. Give it a try. You might find the position for older dates.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cc850b3ea492.jpg[/atsimg]


As you can see... the position of the magnetic pole is not what you call "stable"


[edit on 23-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by afterschoolfun
The ancient landmarks, for a lack of a better word, are lined up in a great circle, and the lines cross at a point in Alaska.

What is your logic for cherry picking the "ancient landmarks" just so that it fits your circle, if I may ask?

Just curious. I really see nothing strange with drawing a circle around the warmer regions of the earth (ie near the equator) where many of the earliest civilizations started.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by merka]

Just accusing someone of cherry picking makes YOU look like the person with the problem.

Why can't you keep the attitude on your side of your computer screen? Unless you WANT to drive away people who are just arrived and are trying to contribute. We have enough of hater skeptics as it is.

I'm sorry for expecting you to not attack the OP, I would hate take that away from you.

As for these alignments of the ancient structures, this also correlates with many ancient sites and buildings being aligned with stars or at specific directions.

Ancient structures being aligned? STOP THE PRESSES! This has been known for ages. All aligned in a big focusing circle? If they are also aligned with ley lines, then they would naturally generate energy.

Not to mention spheres and circles are the most natural shape for a fluidic form to take (think fluid in a zero grav environment: equal pressure all sides = sphere, if flat surface = circle)

If one follows natural flow of their planet, not only will there be points of flow and resistance, there will be certain areas where that energy focuses. If various civilizations build on those points and since we live on a mostly sphere, a circle is a most natural expression if those energies can be found on the same latitude or longitude.

This doesn't even require everyone working together. Civilization number one can simply build within their range on that possibly unknown energy source, and civilization two could have done the same thing thousands of miles away, even thousands of years earlier.

To the OP: Great post!

just feel compelled to point out that the one map, that looks like 1980 graphics, where the witnesses of the UFO are outlined, that is the province of Yukon in Canada. Not the state of Alaska.

Either way all the people saying civilization began around the equator we always have to keep in mind that we know for sure only what we know. Your entire judgment is based on civilizations beginning around the equator and that may be true, but the earth was also flat for quite some time. Few years from now civilization may have begun in the poles, in fact homo-erectus left africa some millions of years before they thought they did and ventured into what is now Europe and then returned to Africa. To make that statement a year ago was to be ridiculed, but artifacts and human skulls have proven it to be the case.

I like this Article because it plays on the notion that there are no coincidences. If it were in fact "cherry picked" and it is only chosen monuments or ruins that fit on the line you can still ask the question as to why those particular monuments fall on the line.
IMO there is no dissproving anything in this article, its amazing that so many people are so freely to accept one theory and so quickly shun another.
I for one will at leats look more into this, if for nothing more than good conversation one day.
CHEERS TO THE AUTHOR.

Hi There

I confess I haven't read the whole thread. Just wondering if the name Rand Flem Ath has been brought up yet. He wrote a book on this subject. You might be very interested in his theories.

I'm going to read now. Kudos on your subject matter.

Originally posted by GideonHM

Just accusing someone of cherry picking makes YOU look like the person with the problem.

No.. it brings up a valid observation and doesn't blindly slobber all over subject of the thread. It's called objectivity. You might give it a try.

A respondent stated:

... ALL within .1 of a degree latitude? How is that cherry picking? They're there, they line up, something is up.

I pointed out that Pumapunku, a rather perplexing site unto itself and not mentioned by the OP in the great circle alignment, is well south of the Nazca lines, a site that was mentioned by the OP. In fact, Pumapunku is about 120 miles further South.

No explanation or significance was given to the Chinese Pyramids.. of which there are a ... well "many".

ATS thread on Chinese Pyramids by Zorgon

As for the tectonic plates having moved over a few thousand years to change the alignments... well, I noted the speed at which some of the well known plate boundaries are shifting... and it ain't what you call "fast"

Magnetic alignments? Possibly... but the drifting poles make any alignment ephemeral at best.

Spin axis shift? Imagine the amount of energy and catastrophic damage it would take to overcome the Earth's moment of inertia. You would pobably need a rather massive impactor to do that... and I don't see any fresh craters large enough to reveal an impactor of that size.

Just to give you an idea... imagine a chunk of iron.. an asteroid, hits the earth at a 45 degree angle doing about 33 km/s. Let's also make this chunk of iron about 500 km across (~ 310.50 miles), so it has lots of mass. Want to know what would happen?

The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.

The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.

The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

But you get a crater 4260 miles across and 2.62 miles deep.. mostly filled with melt. The impact will generate a shock equivalent to a magnitude 13.8 earthquake, and will probably end most life on the Earth.

6000 miles away, the ejecta that will fall on you will be 1210 ft thick, and the dynamic overpressure will be about 2460 psi as the 7470 mph winds go blasting by.

But in the end... "The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis."

www.lpl.arizona.edu...





[edit on 23-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]

Originally posted by redbarron626
reply to post by afterschoolfun

 

Great first thread OP! please keep up the good work. Although there may be some "holes" in this theory, I personally find it rather remarkable that there are so many sites within this circle. An addendum to your idea is: Did you notice how close your center point in Alaska is to the Magnetic Pole? I wonder if the magnetic north pole was at one time centered on this area and perhaps had something to do with this area being center point??

Hey BM you added your observation just before mine.

great twisted minds must think alike!

[edit on 23-9-2009 by redbarron626]

wouldn't that relatively put all the other sites of the equator axis

i know it was just suggestion no offence

[edit on 23/9/2009 by digalog]

reply to post by afterschoolfun


You should check David Wilcocks Awake & Aware talk to find the answer.

Ley lines and earths natural energy (of course he explains it in much more detail and much better than me).

Over and out
Twisted-Inside-Out

Sorry I took so long... didn't had the time to lok for the video that can help me makng you understand what I was talking about on previous posts.

In the video that I'm about to post go to minut 49, you will understand why I was talking about earth focal point at egypte latitude or Florida. As I was doing some research, long before I saw this video, I came to the same conclusion about the focal point location. The magnetic, energetic and geographic focal point on Earth. Anthiant civilizations Like the Maia new this, they also new it oscilate between north and equator, that was determinant for the construction of the Piramids etc....

Google Video Link

video.google.com...#

reply to post by promomag
thanks for the link to the Golden Circle/Section. home.hiwaay.net... makes the op's thread quite interesting.

If you expand the circle into a grid:

www.vortexmaps.com...

I have a question.

With all the earthquakes and slight continental shift, do the ancient sites still line up?

Has it ever made any difference? If so what?

The sites listed above are shown clockwise from Giza on the equal azimuthal projection below. The projection is centered on the axis point in southeastern Alaska. Distances to any location from the center of an equal azimuthal projection are equally scaled. Since all of the sites on the great circle alignment are equally distant from the axis point at one quarter of the circumference of the earth, the alignment forms a perfect circle halfway between the center and the outer edge of the projection.

home.hiwaay.net...

i don't understand much about this and i was wondering, the statement above concerning "the projection is centered on the axis point in southeastern alaska," please expound on this for me. i've been looking at home.hiwaay.net... and i just want some words i can understand.
i mean what would be the significance of inrelations to alaska?

[edit on 30-9-2009 by musselwhite]

drawing a line down to the southeaster point in alaska forms a triangle

Angkor Preah Vihear is 4754 miles from Giza. This is 19.1% of the great circle circumference, or 68.754° (19.1% times π equals 60.00% and 68.754° times π equals 216.00°). The two great circle segments from the axis point to Giza and to Angkor Vihear are each 90°, or 180° combined. 180°/68.754° = 2.618. The ratio between both sides of this terrestrial triangle and the baselength of the triangle is 2.618 to one.

home.hiwaay.net...

i know it must be of significance. when i look at the numbers and the center point being at a point located in southeastern alaska. i just don't know but something keeps me coming back to this thread.

alaska is commonly referred to as the north gate to some in religion.

reply to post by afterschoolfun


You may find the work of author, Jim Alison, of some interest:

Exploring Geographic and Geometric Relationships Along a Line of Ancient Sites Around the World

THE AXIS POINTS

Regards,

Scott Creighton